but since they don't want their animals to die of disease, doesn't it make sense that they would use the most effective way to prevent disease as possible?
They will use the method of preventing, curing, ignoring or enhancing the effects of disease that will give them the biggest profit.
I would assume that most rational people would say that a technique that causes some temporary pain but avoids a hideous, lingering death is not "cruel".
I agree. However there are alternatives to mulesing, apparently.
I notice that Pradtf and others are NOT claiming that the procedure causes the animals permanent suffering and pain; that is why I have use the term discomfort, it is unclear to me how much pain a sheep experiences from having some flesh removed from its hindquarters. Apparently it does no permanent physical damage.
Torment, misery, and agony can all be temporary. Using 'discomfort' puts a very strong spin on the situation.
Now Pradtf and the boys want the sheep to be given pain killers during the procedure; I think we can safely assume that doing this would be absolutely cost prohibitive.
Probably. That seemed like an odd suggestion to me.
So we are left with a bunch of other solutions to the problems (I think there's a list somewhere in this thread) but all of them seem very expensive compared to the procedure used.
That's a legitimate point. On page 2 this was discussed:
Originally posted by easybeat
more well informed people in this area have been quoted as saying that due to the extremely high incidence of 'fly strike' (especially in Australia) it would be cruel not to prevent this. It's a classic case of the lesser of two evils here.
The suggestion here seems to be that the choice is between flystrike vs mulesing (easybeat) or taildocking (trekkie). These are certainly not the only choices and if you look further into this you will see that there are several solutions:
Selection for Less Susceptible Breeds and Topical Applications are long term, research oriented approaches. These are not a reasonable alternative in the short run, but should continue to be worked on.
Increased Monitoring and Treatment and Vaccinations don't sound unreasonable necessarily. It depends on how much treatment/vaccination costs if caught early and how expensive it would be to monitor the sheep. It's highly possible this is a minor expense and/or a little extra work the wool industry doesn't want to have to deal with.
Insecticides are a very possible way of dealing with the problem. It might or might not be too expensive. In addition, there are issues of possible resistance developing among the flies. This could be a short term solution that gives time for longer term solutions to kick in, however, such as breeding/artificial selection.
Sterile Male Blowfly Release sounds like it might be a good possibility. Expense and level of effectiveness are concerns.
Baited Traps seem like a good idea.
Reduced Stocking Densities will lessen profits, but will be good for the sheep in other ways.
Careful Diet Selection needs to be described in more detail. It's a possibility, but there needs to be solid, unbiased scientific proof of results.
Rearing in Regions Less Hospitable to Blowfly Populations seems like an impractical approach. People own the land they own. They can't move it around.
Timely Shearing sounds like a possibility.
Crutching is something I've never heard of.
All I'm saying is that IF there is no other suitable, cost effective way to prevent this disease THEN the temporary discomfort imposed on the sheep doesn't seem "cruel" to me.
I'd say it depends on how painful the procedure was. If it was really horrific, then it might not be acceptable, even if it was short term.
And a "boycott" to prevent the procedure, knowing full well that there is no other economically viable way to prevent the disease, seems to me just a veiled way of trying to run these people out of business.
If your premises are true, your argument holds. I have a hard time believing most people involved in the boycott believe there are no other economically viable alternatives though.
Well let us suppose the cost per giving a painkiller to a sheep is .5 dollars.
Is that a reasonable number for the drug, any syringes needed, extra time taken for the procedure, etc?
So the total cost is 100*.5=50million dollars. So percentage raise per the sales is .05billion/3billion=about 1.5 percent increase in price. Thats not much.
I can't really comment, as I am fairly ignorant about business.
How much do people spend per year on their pet dogs,cats etc.This would be a minor fraction compared to that cost.Considering that you are also using its natural body product wool for commercial profit you have an obligation to ensure it gets atleast humane treatment.
This is a bad comparison. Pets are luxuries. Sheep are a job - a livelihood.
unfortunately, obligations are easy to ignore when it comes to agri animals because there are usually no protective laws in place.
And because these animals aren't seen from day to day by the average Joe.
people who are guided by the profit margin or how cheap they can get their wool, for instance, will set a very different standard for what is 'humane'.
Yep.
that sort of argument as well as the "you are destroying the livelihood of millions" and of course the "you guys go around breaking windows and god knows what else" are typical of those who
1) haven't looked into the matter
2) want for whatever reason to deny what is happening
3) let the profit margin guide their actions
I find it irritating when people hear a position and then try to categorize the person making the position, especially when said categorization gives that person a negative image. You damaged your credibility, and that of the boycott, in my eyes with that statement. It was very patronizing.
If you ceased to see sentimental value in the glove, you would no longer have a reason not to destroy it, whereas if you ceased to value your dog, you would still have a moral reason not to torture it.
One could feel they had no moral right to destroy the Mona Lisa because of it's deep artistic, irreplaceable value to humanity. I think this glove could be similar.
Further, you claim twice in your post that moral constraints...
You bring up deep philosophical issues that would take a long time to discuss, and would bring about no simple agreement. Debating these issues would not help us decide how to look at this issue except in the extreme long run. My personal perspective is that morality needs to be defined, and every individual can define it differently. I think with enough thought and honesty all people will come to realize that their definition reduces to the idea that causing pain is evil, and causing pleasure is good, and diminishing evil is good, and diminishing good is evil. However not all people agree with me.
Re: 'owning' of children and the disabled - who cares if they are 'owned' or not? What difference does it make if we have moral obligations to them regardless? What is 'owning' anyway?
I submit that proper objects of ownership are those things of which an owner may use in any way he desires, subject only to constraints in place by virtue of the rights of others.
So you've defined the word 'own'. It sounds like a reasonable definition, but a definition that allowed the 'owning' of dogs could be reasonable too. They'd just be different definitions, used at different times by different people. I can't agree that either is perfect. I don't think it really matters.
In fact, the vast majority of people would agree with my analysis of property and not yours.
I think most people agree that you can own a dog, and therefore your definition is not absolutely right.
First, people generally think that if they own something they can do with it what they please (within constraints placed by the rights of others).
Generally, sure, but there are some things you can't do to pets and other owned animals. These are exceptions to the general rule.
Second, your claim that it is possible to own something to which you owe a moral obligation entails that it is possible to own humans.
Sure, maybe you can temporarily own your baby. So what? As long as it's recognized that this gives you only certain rights regarding the baby, and that you have a moral obligation to it, in practice it makes no difference. In reality, people nowadays tend to refuse to allow anyone to assign the status of ownership to other people. So we have an awkward yet consistent definition of ownership - as you described, with two exceptions - one being that animals can be owned despite our having moral obligations to them, and the other being the exception to the exception, that we cannot own human beings. That, or something like it, is the real definition people go by. Therefore, the following statement is incorrect:
...the commonly accepted notion of property (i.e., my view), is inconsistent with the following claims: 1) We owe moral obligations to animals, and 2) Animals can be property.
This establishes nothing about the rationality of these beliefs
The definition is awkward, definitely. Possibly there are two entirely different but related meanings of the word 'ownership'. One applies to nonhuman animals, and the other applies to plants and nonliving things. Both use the same word, but they are different definitions. Most words have multiple definitions. Check out the dictionary.
Maybe it's ALP-HA and PETA or Beta
LOL.
Blowflies look like house files and feed on dung and carrion.
You are mistaken. These are called buttflies. If you played Peasant's Quest you would become educated.
Did you know that lambs used to be castrated (on large ranches) by having the farmer bite off the testicles?
Wow.
. If you merely stipulate that humans cannot be objects of ownership, while animals can, then you'll need some argument to back this up.
Not really. I can (and people have) arbritrarily decided to define the word 'ownership' this way.
It is not a sufficient argument to claim that people believe this, because people believe all sorts of nonsense, as is evidenced by the fact that most people throughout history have thought that humans can be owned.
The word has evolved over time.
Animals with infested wounds should be quietly caught and treated without delay.
So treatment is possible, and observation for signs of infection is possible. Maybe it's only realistic on this small scale, instead of for all sheep.
Originally posted by no1maraudernot correct. pradtf and the boys don't want mulesing to be used.
Now Pradtf and the boys want the sheep to be given pain killers during the procedure; I think we can safely assume that doing this would be absolutely cost prohibitive.
what was said was that the very least that could be done is to use anaesthetic.
the cost being prohibitive is a matter of the profit line no doubt, but that is hardly a justification.
interestingly enough here's what the Executive Director of Wool Producers Australia, Ms Sharon Turner apparently has to say about anaesthetics:
According to Turner, anaesthetics have been ruled out, as the lamb has to be away from its mother for a longer period, something that has proven even more stressful than mulesing.
http://www.yenmag.net/dev/article.php?iss=11&art=95
so it seems that the anaesthetics may not be cost-prohibitive after all?
it seems that there is this concern about keeping the lambs away from the mother because it is even more stressful than cutting slices of flesh off?
and just how long will the lamb stay away from the mother and just how stressful will it be?
this seems like typical gobbletygook that is thrown around in order to justify not doing things differently.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by KneverKnightAccording to a release by the Center for Consumer Freedom (who aren't particularly AR friendly), PETA made a $2,000 contribution to the defense of David Wilson in 1990, and $5,000 contribution to the "Josh Harper Support Committee." they also provided the $45 000 (some sources say $70 000) to coronado in 2002, i think.
Taken from http://www.nfss.org/Legis/Peta-AA/pet-5.html
PETA says it does not fund terrorists, but when arsonists who blew up a research lab in Michigan were caught, PETA paid $45,000 for the legal defense of arsonist Rodney Coronado. ...[text shortened]... do," he said.
end quote Seems a high price for animal rights.
the funds went to their legal defense. if they hadn't paid for it, surely a public attorney at public expense would have been assigned.
i'm not sure why you say "Seems a high price for animal rights" when it has nothing to do with animal rights. Even murderers get a trial and are deemed innocent till proven guilty.
if you mean that the money could have been spent more appropriately on campaigns or education, i think i am inclined to agree with you only from the point of view that if i were to contribute to PETA, i would want my money to be spent in benefitting animals.
in friendship,
prad
I normally loathe "cut and paste" jobs, but I thought this media release from the Australian Veterinary Society must be illuminating (the website is http://www.ava.com.au/:
Released: Friday, 15 October, 2004
AVA says ban on Australian wool unnecessary
The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) says that claims by animal liberation groups that the animal husbandry practice of mulesing sheep are cruel do not consider that the alternative is a painful infection known as 'blowfly strike' caused by maggots eating the live flesh of sheep and resulting in extreme pain and distress for the animal. Untreated animals generally die.
AVA National President, Dr Norm Blackman says the AVA considers the practice of mulesing as a necessary sheep husbandry procedure to prevent blowfly strike provided the operation is performed by skilled operators and on animals that are less than 12 months old.
"I want to emphasise that while the AVA acknowledges the need for this practice we strongly support continued research into alternative methods of blowfly control that do not require the current surgical methods," says Dr Blackman.
"AVA policy makes it quite clear that the mulesing practice is necessary from a welfare perspective until science has developed more suitable methods for managing blowfly strike in sheep."
Blowfly strike is a common form of fly strike in weaner sheep and ewes. It is caused by blowflies laying eggs on the skin of the sheep and when they hatch the maggots feed off the skin of the sheep. This can result in the death of the sheep.
"The AVA is supportive of research that provides alternative methods of controlling blowfly strike and has positive health and welfare benefits for the sheep," says Dr Blackman.
"Banning Australian produced wool because of an animal husbandry practice performed to alleviate further suffering is inappropriate and not in the interests of the animals," says Dr Blackman.
"Sometimes we need to tolerate a certain way of doing things until a better solution is found."
no1: I assume that Pradtf cannot accuse the AVA of not being informed on the issue as he has accused me and others. I urge those with an open mind the consider the release and I wait with bemusment for the answer of Pradtf to the AVA release.
In Youthinktheymightknowsomethingyoudon'tsheep,
2BitLawyer
Originally posted by AThousandYoungmy credibility isn't particularly important here.
I find it irritating when people hear a position and then try to categorize the person making the position, especially when said categorization gives that person a negative image. You damaged your credibility, and that of the boycott, in my eyes with that statement. It was very patronizing.
you will either see the boycott as a suitable solution to what is a barbaric process or you won't.
however, let me repeat what i wrote:
that sort of argument as well as the "you are destroying the livelihood of millions" and of course the "you guys go around breaking windows and god knows what else" are typical of those who
1) haven't looked into the matter
2) want for whatever reason to deny what is happening
3) let the profit margin guide their actions
fortunately, because of item 3), boycotts do have an effect.
the "that sort of argument" refers to the "it was suggested that it isn't a problem because Apparently it does no permanent physical damage" (from an earlier post). simply put this is the
"it doesn't really hurt the animals that much" argument. coupled with this is
"you are destroying the livelihood of millions" and the
"you guys go around breaking windows and god knows what else"
if you look on the web, you'll see these same 'excuses' appearing over and over. in fact, you can even look on RHP and you'll see the same things over and over.
when i say 1) these people haven't looked into the matter - i am not making this up trying to give someone a negative image. when i brought the sheep issue up nearly a year ago, it was suggested by one person that i didn't even know what a sheep looked like - it turned out that he hadn't even heard of mulesing.
when i say 2) these people want for whatever reason to deny what is happening - i am not making this up either. many people find it easy to deny cruelties to animals not only because they haven't looked into it, but because they don't want to look into it. further, they try to justify whatever is happening through deflection eg livelihood and window breaking.
when i say 3) these people let the profit margin guide their actions - i am not making this up am i? these agribusinesses do their thing regardless of the cost to animals, to the environment, or to other people. on an individual level and individual profit margin, some do the same. no1marauder is correct when he wrote earlier "I betcha they're a lot of people who couldn't care less what happens to a sheep in Australia if they can get a nice wool sweater at a cheap price!" it is the same with say sweatshop products or child slavery in the ivory coast chocolate trade.
it is not so much people that are being categorized, but the thought processes that are being used.
however, as people become informed and even recognize the process, many do start to think about it - many even change their minds. i can say this with 100% certainty because i have been at one time or another been in each of categories to some extent as far as my thinking goes. i have also seen many others emerge from them and think differently.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by no1marauderall this is fine, but it's old stuff we've been through earlier in the thread.
no1: I assume that Pradtf cannot accuse the AVA of not being informed on the issue as he has accused me and others. I urge those with an open mind the consider the release and I wait with bemusment for the answer of Pradtf to the AVA release.
we know that some groups say that it is either mulesing or flystrike.
we also know that some groups say there are alternatives.
and finally, we know some groups say it must be stopped.
i'm not accusing you of being uninformed so much as just refusing to acknowledge anything more than 'slight discomfort to the sheep'. i also acknowledge that you are no 'expert on sheep' as you wrote and do not hold that against you - i am no expert either, but i think i may have looked at this somewhat longer and a little more extensively than you.
for the president of the AVA, Dr. Blackman, to say "Banning Australian produced wool because of an animal husbandry practice performed to alleviate further suffering is inappropriate and not in the interests of the animals," is not surprising. it is the sort of statement that usually appears at most boycotts. somehow, according to some people, a boycott can never be in the interests of those who it is intended to benefit.
we shall see if he is correct or not.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfWell, one or the other is wrong. And I for one am not prepared at this stage to support a boycott as a means of finding out.
we know that some groups say that it is either mulesing or flystrike.
we also know that some groups say there are alternatives.
It seems to me that a boycott is a Win/Lose strategy - we'll fight you and someone will triumph. Research, which the AVA clearly supports, is a Win/Win strategy - we want to stop this and we'll help you find a better way.
I know which strategy is more likely to get results in my opinion.
Originally posted by pradtfWould you say that the AVA are, unlike me or you, experts on sheep? Why are the people who actually treat sheep to you just a "politically motivated group" who's opinion is entitled to no more weight than PETA's? Aren't you, as someone who believes wool farming should be banned entirely, far more biased than the AVA and far less likely to consider the actual evidence in a dispassionate and informed manner as the AVA did?
all this is fine, but it's old stuff we've been through earlier in the thread.
we know that some groups say that it is either mulesing or flystrike.
we also know that some groups say there are alternatives.
and finally, we know some groups say it must be stopped.
i'm not accusing you of being uninformed so much as just refusing to acknowledge anythin ...[text shortened]... it is intended to benefit.
we shall see if he is correct or not.
in friendship,
prad
In Whataboutitsheep,
2BitLawyer
Originally posted by orfeoi answered you on p11, orfeo but i'll repeat it below just in case you didn't see it.
Well, one or the other is wrong. And I for one am not prepared at this stage to support a boycott as a means of finding out.
It seems to me that a boycott is a Win/Lose strategy - we'll fight you and someone will triumph. Research, whic ...[text shortened]... I know which strategy is more likely to get results in my opinion.
i think groups feel they have already exhausted the Win/Win strategy which is why the boycott is in place. i think the Win/Lose strategy may catalyze the adoptation of alternatives. this is, of course, the animal welfare stance. the animal rights one is, understandably, a different matter.
in friendship,
prad
-----------------------------
you make a good point. i don't know whether the alternatives are not implemented because there really isn't a viable solution or because the powers that control the cash flow do not want to spend the bucks or whether there is another reason.
my guess is that considering all the alternatives available (and combinations thereof), that it is really a matter of certain people not wanting to do it usually because of the profit margin. for instance, what could be the reason that at least anaesthetic isn't used during mulesing? too many sheep perhaps and too great a cut into profits?
a boycott can often speed up finding a solution because it increases the motivation not so much from the progress of research, but from the perspective of adoptation. for instance, if solution A is going to cut profits by 10%, but the boycott is going to cut them by 80% then there is motivation for adoptation.
when we were doing antiapartheid protests in the 80s and the matter of the boycott came about, certain people didn't want to do it because it 'hurt' business. of course, the reason they cited was that the boycott 'hurt' the workers in south africa. desmond tutu in a speech here in toronto said that the workers know there will be hard times ahead, but they know that it is the only way to make changes happen. the solutions were always present - but the 'motivation' the boycott provided was necessary for them to be implemented.
it may be the same here.
Originally posted by no1marauderi'm sure they are, but if you look at the alternatives posted, i think you'll find that they have been researched by people who don't belong to PETA.
Would you say that the AVA are, unlike me or you, experts on sheep? Why are the people who actually treat sheep to you just a "politically motivated group" who's opinion is entitled to no more weight than PETA's? Aren't you, as someone who believes wool farming should be banned entirely, far more biased than the AVA and far less likely to ...[text shortened]... nd informed manner as the AVA did?
In Whataboutitsheep,
2BitLawyer
also, just because an association takes one stance, it doesn't necessarily mean all its members do the same. in an earlier post, there are statements from 2 vets who make some revealing comments about mulesing. i'll repeat them below.
in friendship,
prad
-------------------
Two vets speak out against mulesing
DR JOHN AUTY is a veterinarian with vast experience in the meat and sheep trade, who has also worked as an Agronomist, as a stud overseer in private practice, as Chief Commissioner for Soil Conservation and in the Department of Primary Industry.
He says of Mulesing: "It is similar to flaying and the pain will be experienced for weeks and months afterwards. Mulesing does not free the sheep from blowfly strike, but proper husbandry practices, including close inspection of sheep, will reduce and virtually eliminate flystrike."
DR ROGER MEISCHKE is a vet surgeon who has practiced in the wool growing areas of NSW and for the Federal Department of Primary Industry. He now runs a small sheep stud. Dr Meischke is critical of mulesing. He says farmers who mules and breed from all sheep enable the susceptibility to flystrike to continue.
He says: "Mulesing is an admission by sheep breeders, that their animals do not possess the breeding required for survival in their area."
Originally posted by pradtfThere are 5,000 members of the AVA; finding two who would say something contrary to the official position of the association is most unimpressive. The second statement seems to be similar to earlier ones that say Australian wool farmers should use a different breed than Merino, but as I pointed out 84.6% or 90 million sheep in Australia are of that breed. The AVA release specifically addresses the issue of alternative treatments and says that further research is needed, but that for now, the mulesing procedure is the best available. It may look gruesome, but so does open heart surgery; that does not mean they are not both necessary. If the AVA, the people who have dedicated their lives to the treatment and care of animals and who have first hand experience with blowfly strike (which is not flies buzzing around, but maggots actually in the sheep's skin eating them alive) say the procedure is necessary at this time, that's good enough for me.
i'm sure they are, but if you look at the alternatives posted, i think you'll find that they have been researched by people who don't belong to PETA.
also, just because an association takes one stance, it doesn't necessarily mean all ...[text shortened]... do not possess the breeding required for survival in their area."
In Iguessthat'salltosaysheep,
2BitLawyer